Lecture 5.docx

Premium

Lecture 5
Key concepts in sentencing
- Retribution
• When an offender causes harm by breaking a law, society has right/duty to inflict
harm in return
• Just deserts, eye for an eye
• No concern for outcome, duty to administer justice (whatever the effect)
- Incapacitation
• Control crime by removing ability/opportunity
• Restricts freedom to act
• Prevents (or displaces) crime in the short term
• But, an expensive way to reduce crime
• Increasing prison population by 25% would reduce crime rates by 1% (Tarling, 1993)
- Deterrence
• Punishment as a route to rehabilitation
• Specific deterrence – stops the punished individual
 Affect the behavior of the specific individual (ex: through incarceration)
• General deterrence – stops others in the community
 Kind of like using someone as an example when putting them in jail
• Absolute deterrence – stops the crime altogether
 Punish it so much no one does it anymore
• Restrictive deterrence – reduces frequency/severity
 People commit robbery b/c so much punishment for B&E
 Theft under 5000$ = probation under 6 months  B&E and theft over 5000$ (X11)- more than 1 year secure custody
Do harsher sentences work?
- Cannot simply examine re-conviction rates from different sentencing options
• Incarcerated offenders likely to be higher risk
- Study impact of sentencing (deterrent effect):
• Sentences while controlling for risk
• Comparing rates of imprisonment
• Controlled trials
• Self-report surveys
• Changes to death penalty
• Meta-analysis
Controlling for risk
- Comparing across sentence types
- Compared prediction rates based on risk to actual rates with sentences
- If sentencing made a difference, then there should be a difference - For all sentences, actual and predicted rates never differed by more than 3%
- Thus, sentences have essentially no impact on re-offence rates
- Studies controlling risk the sentences had no impact on whether they would recidivate or
not
Imprisonment rates
- Crime rates do not change with changing rates of incarceration (Zimring & Hawkins,
1994, 1995)
- No studies have ever shown a general deterrence effect of incarceration on crime rates
(Nagin, 1998)
- No effect of prison sentences on 742 white collar criminals followed for 10 years
(Weisburd & Chayet, 1995)
- Rate, length, or severity does not decrease crime
Do longer/harsher sentences work?
- Examination of 23 studies:
- Longer vs. shorter sentences:
• 2-3% increases in recidivism for those with longer sentences
• Small positive correlation between length of sentence and reconviction
- High vs. low risk offenders:
• High risk + longer sentences = recidivism
• Low risk + longer sentences = recidivism
- No difference between:
• Fines and short jail sentences for drinking and driving (Evans et al., 1991; Martin et
al., 1993) • Regular supervision and more restrictive supervision (close surveillance, random drug
testing) (Petersilia & Turner, 1993)
• Regular supervision and electronic monitoring (Bonta et al., 2000; Petersilia &
Turner, 1993)
• Boot camps/”shock” incarceration & regular prison (MacKenzie & Souryal, 1994;
MacKenzie et al., 2001; Thornton et al., 1984)
 However, participation in drug/alcohol counseling at boot camps reduced re-
offence (Petersilia & Turner, 1993)
Controlled trials
- Example: Mandatory arrest for domestic violence complaints
• Short-term arrest initial deterrence effect than a criminogenic effect at 12 months later
• Full arrest made no difference (Sherman et al., 1991)
 Mandatory arrest did nothing to deter domestic violence
 Made women more scared and less likely to call police
- When a harsher sentencing option is implemented, compare rates before it came into
practice and after
Self-report surveys
- Arrest made little impact on behaviour of shoplifting teenagers (Klemke, 1982)
• Just made them smarter about shop lifting. Didn’t deter them.
- 8% of youth with serious offences reduced offending following arrest (Huizinga et al.,
2003)
• Most showed no change or increase
• Self-report indicates majority of youth who commit offences are not arrested
• Youth with serious offences more likely to be arrested for one of their more minor
crimes
Death penalty
- Note: general, not specific deterrence. No effect on deterrence - Comparing between countries that retain, abolish, re-instate or never had death penalty
• No evidence that homicide rates are affected by capital punishment (Hood, 2002)
- Changes in gun ownership laws also not effective
Meta-analysis: Gendreau et al., 2001
And, yet, still more punishment
- Despite these findings, get tough strategies are still the most common response to crime
and new strategies are being proposed on a yearly basis
• Example: increasing the number of crimes eligible for mandatory minimum sentences
• Three strikes laws
Why don’t these approaches work?
- Punishment is defined as a negative consequence to a behavior that decreases the
likelihood of the behavior re-occurring
- We know that punishment can work to decrease behavior (e.g., from lab-based studies) so
why does it not work to decrease offending behavior?
6 reasons why punishment doesn’t work in the CJS
- Reason 1 – Intensity:
• Low levels of punishment will decrease a behavior but only temporarily
• When the behavior returns more severe punishment is required to decrease it
 You have to match intensity of punishment to behavior • Results in an escalating cycle of punishment as tolerance increases
 As you punish, the tolerance for the punishment gets higher, so you have to
punish more
• In our CJS we do not provide punishment at maximum intensity and it would be
unfair to do so
- Reason 2 – Immediacy:
• For punishment to work it must immediately follow the behavior we are trying to
suppress
• If there are delays the target behavior may be reinforced and some other behavior is
punished
• In our CJS punishment is not delivered immediately and therefore the behaviors that
need to be targeted are not
- Reason 3 – Consistency:
• In order for punishment to work it must be delivered every time the target behavior
occurs until there is complete suppression
• This repeated pairing of punishment with behavior allows the behavior to become a
signal of impending punishment
• In our CJS many instances of crime go unpunished altogether and commonly similar
behaviors are punished with differing intensities
- Reason 4 – No escape:
• For punishment to work escape routes must be blocked
• In other words, if an individual can get themselves away from the punishment and
accomplish their objective by some other means, punishment has not really worked
• In our CJS it is not usually possible to block escape routes (e.g., punishing one
criminal behavior still leaves open the possibility of performing many other criminal
behaviors)
- Reason 5 – Person variables:
• Person factors will influence the effectiveness of punishment • These factors can include biological, cognitive, and state conditions, as well as a
range of demographic variables (e.g., consider the psychopath who does not
experience fear or anxiety)
• Many offenders serving time in our CJS possess characteristics or traits that reduce
the potential impact of punishment
- Reason 6 – Density:
• Density of punishment must be greater than the density of rewards
• In our CJS many instances of crime go unpunished altogether
• Punishment may not be perceived to outweigh rewards
So why do we keep punishing?
- SOCIETY BELIEVES IN PUNISHMENT
- People believe in the effect of punishment
- Politicians think that getting tough on crime is what the public wants
- Rehabilitation is seen as soft and ineffective
- It takes time and energy to evaluate programs, find they are not working, and initiate new
programs
- Eye for an eye mentality
The rehabilitation debate
- In late 60s/early 70s, both US & UK governments commissioned reports on the
effectiveness of rehabilitation with offenders
- Martinson (1974) review
• The “Nothing Works” review based on 231 studies
• Pessimistic, ending 150 years of optimism
• Concluded education & psychotherapy cannot reduce recidivism
• Highly influential
- Martinson (1979) re-analysis
• Reversed conclusion • Some work, some don’t work, some are harmful
- Evidence mounts through 1980s-90s that rehabilitation can work (“what works)
- Social and political confidence remains modest in Canada (Latimer & Desjardins, 2007)
Change in focus
- Shift in treatment targets
• 1970s: focus on reducing psychological symptoms
 Anxiety, self-esteem, depression
 Making a happy criminal
• Today: focus on criminogenic needs
- Shift in type of program
• 1970s: self-help groups & therapeutic communities
• Today: skills-based programs
 Available for variety of treatment targets
 Available for variety of populations
Meta-analysis and reviews
- Juvenile offenders (Garrett, 1985; Roberts & Camasso, 1991; Whitehead & Lab, 1989)
- Young adults (Dowden &Andrews, 1999; Lipsey, 1992, 1995)
- Sex offenders (Alexander, 1999; Gallagher et al., 1999; Hall, 1995; Hanson et al., 2002;
Polizzi et al., 1999)
- Violent offenders (Dowden &Andrews, 2000)
- Young violent offenders (Lipsey & Wilson, 1998)
- Drunk driving offences (Wells-Parker et al., 1995)
- Offenders with personality disorders (Salekin, 2002)
- Female offenders (Dowden &Andrews, 1999)
Andrews et al. (1990) - Arguably the most influential meta-analytic review
• Identified risk factors in literature
• Hypothesis: programs that target risk factors will reduce recidivism
• Tested 154 programs
 Appropriate service (ex: program targets risk factors)
 Unspecified service (inappropriate)
 Inappropriate service (inappropriate)
 Criminal sanctions only (inappropriate)
What works!
- Slight increase in recidivism for inappropriate
- Appropriate showed decrease
Conclusions from meta-analysis
- On average, across all types of intervention
• Positive effect of rehabilitation
• Effect is small & modest (average r = .10)
• Indicates if sample recidivates at 50%
• Treatment group would reoffend at 45%
• Non-treatment group would reoffend at 55% - BUT: significant & large variation (heterogeneity) among effect sizes
Binominal effect size display
- Assuming equal number of cases in each group and 50% re-offending rate
Variability in effect size
- Age differences
• Treatment more effective for adolescents and adults compared to “young adults”
 Offenders below 15 (r = .16)
 15-18 years old (r = .11)
 Over 18 (r = .17)
• The younger the group = bigger treatment rewards (younger is better)
- Community vs. institution
• Best designed services have even greater benefit when deliv